I don't know part of Sparky's reason to invest in CNU was that National would step in and override the regulators to make sure the fibre roll out was a success. A bit of a gamble in hindsight.
Printable View
If benchmarking aginst Sweden and Denmark is such a great idea then why not regulate everything else using the same basis. Power charges, bank charges, right down to the price of fish. Hey, and their tax rates. The complete model.
This of course does not make any sense. And it makes even less sense to selectively pick out another country's costs for just one of those things and apply it directly here in NZ.
How many other contries would apply such a process. I wonder if Sweden has used NZ as a model for any of their costs. Of course not.
The FPP process is the only acceptable process for NZ.
Whilst everyone luxuriates in misconception, (lovely turn of phrase Tim), I'm seeking an entry point. Have to confess its difficult to find......maybe its for next years agenda
Chalkie states:
Quote:
Let Chalkie cast the first stone.
Suppose you had a ferry plying Cook Strait. It's 20 years old and showing its age. It is slow, uncomfortable and becoming prone to mechanical failure. Recognising the service isn't up to scratch, another ferry company enters the market with a new ship - a faster, more comfortable one with entertainment facilities.
The old ferry company argues that its ferry is worth the same as the new one, because that's how much it would cost to replace it.
So it charges the same price - and quickly goes out of business. Clearly, it is nonsense to say the old ferry can be valued at the cost of replacement, or that customers would be willing to pay the same price for the old and new services.
First - My understanding is the entry level fibre isn't that much better than top of the line copper, and for the general masses watch cats falling off a couch on youtube, they will not notice the difference. Cooper doesn't break down and if you are close enough to the exchange, speed is similar to the restricted fibre. Telecom/Vodafone charge the same for data whether you are on 2g, 3g or 4g (i think 2Degrees differentiates out of its main areas?) - same service, same cost - so his new boat, old boat argument does not stack up.
Second - why are we investing $1.5B into fibre if the plan is not for it to replace copper
fibre is better at supporting all internet traffic, not just video, and video isn't the only practical use it would have for NZ
Has anyone considered that they may not even be able to walk away from the project. In that the penalty clause could trigger bank covenants?
I think was saying that why should the copper network be valued at cost of a fibre (replacement) network for pricing purposes. The copper network has been written down over the years and is in Chorus's book at a much lower figure than a new fibre network. As such to make an economic return they don't really need to charge as if it was brand new.Quote:
Harvey First - My understanding is the entry level fibre isn't that much better than top of the line copper, and for the general masses watch cats falling off a couch on youtube, they will not notice the difference. Cooper doesn't break down and if you are close enough to the exchange, speed is similar to the restricted fibre. Telecom/Vodafone charge the same for data whether you are on 2g, 3g or 4g (i think 2Degrees differentiates out of its main areas?) - same service, same cost - so his new boat, old boat argument does not stack up.
Second - why are we investing $1.5B into fibre if the plan is not for it to replace copper
He did bring 'service' into the argument and that is what you picked on.
Maybe there is a bit of Whilst everyone luxuriates in misconception, .... but what the heck do I know and it is me that misunderstood his argument